backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by Laereom.. on Nov 1 at 12:17 PM

The new Model S sedan, which will carry a price tag of $57,400

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk recently announced that the company would launch an all-electric Model S sedan next year. Now, Musk has told Bloomberg Television that next year's production of the new Model S has sold out, and that he expects Tesla to earn a profit in 2013.

Recent reports noted that Tesla has lost money on every Roadster sold, which includes the two-seat Roadster and the Roadster Sport, which had price tags of $109,000 and $128,500 respectively. The news came yesterday that a new Roadster will arrive in 2014, and that a range of vehicles are expected over the next four to five years as well, including the new Model S sedan, which will carry a price tag of $57,400.

"The Model S starts at half price of the Roadster, about $50,000," said Musk, noting that the original Roadster will no longer be in production and was always limited. "The Roadster is high price, low volume. Model S is mid-price, mid-volume. Our third generation, which will be in 3 or 4 years will be low price, high volume. It is the only strategy that could work because we need to build up the economies of scale."

Tesla Model S [Source: Tesla Motors]
 
The loss on each Roadster was just part of the problem for Tesla. The company is also facing scrutiny in regards to its worthiness of receiving government funding. Many have compared Tesla and Fisker Automotive's EV loans to the huge $500 million loan given to solar company Solyndra, which went bankrupt in September.

"I defended it and I have said if you have a portfolio of loans, and they're acknowledged to be high risk, you're going to have some failures in the mix," said Musk regarding Solyndra. "One should not expect to bat 1000. Critics say why can't the government bat 1000. The best venture capitalists on Earth can't bat 1000, why do you expect the government to?"

Musk is looking ahead to a brighter future for Tesla, brushing aside worries regarding competition such as that from BYD. Musk said he didn't think BYD's products were all that "great" or attractive anyway, and that the technology isn't all that strong. According to Musk, BYD needs to concentrate on the issues at hand in China.

Tesla Model S [Source: Tesla Motors]

The upcoming potential for a profit in 2013 and the Model S sellout have Tesla thinking optimistically toward the future where Musk envisions the entire industry going electric.

"I think the entire industry will go fully electric," said Musk. "I think that all modes of transport will go fully electric with the exception, ironically, of rockets. The question is just how soon.”

Source: Bloomberg Television



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Yeah about that...
By vol7ron on 10/29/2011 4:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"One should not expect to bat 1000. Critics say why can't the government bat 1000. The best venture capitalists on Earth can't bat 1000, why do you expect the government to?"


Maybe because venture capitalists are spending their money. The government is spending tax payer's money (yours and mine).

Again, the "government" isn't some all-knowing organization, they are elected officials made up our neighbors. They are regular, ordinary people. Why should they have the right to spend your money or my money how they see fit. They are not any more capable in spending my money than me and it is not theirs to spend. I worked hard for it, I studied hard to work hard for it, and I should be the one that makes the ultimate decision in how I spend the fruits of my labor.




RE: Yeah about that...
By mufdvr3669 on 10/30/2011 1:18:30 AM , Rating: 4
Totally agree. That's why I say get rid of the police, fire department, homeland security, military, etc. I'll buy my own guns and we'll all wild wild west it out here.


RE: Yeah about that...
By wordsworm on 10/30/2011 2:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
It would be interesting to see what would happen if everyone had a direct say in what happened to their taxes. ie., you choose to give your taxes to schools if you believe in that, or roads if you believe in that, etc. I am sure it wouldn't work, but it would certainly be interesting.


RE: Yeah about that...
By vol7ron on 10/30/2011 12:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
I am not certain it wouldn't work, but yes, you need some sort of decisive agent making the ultimate say. When the government first started it wanted the more wealthy landholders to have the say. Later, they wanted to put intelligence tests on voting, but this was run by bosses that were corrupt. Eventually everyone was given a fair voice/vote, instead of being forced into how to vote.

The problem is that our culture has advanced, mostly attributed to improvements in technology. People are more connected these days, but unfortunately, the average intelligence has dropped. Not to mention, there are more and more immigrants (legal and illegal) that infiltrate our society and are given a voice, that doesn't follow suit with what our original founding fathers had set. Mind you, many people escaping Europe and coming to the Americas were trying to escape the tyranny and high taxes that were instilled on them.

I'm not sure how we can improve our intelligence. But I'm afraid that one day the majority vote might have us all wearing gold chains and driving Escalades, but living in impoverishment conditions - an obvious generalization/overstatement of ghetto decisions of wants vs needs. So while I do agree, that I would like to have more of a decision to where my tax dollars are spent, I feel that our current system isn't set up to adequately appropriate the decision of the masses. Still, I don't expect my tax dollars to be spent as investments; instead it should be used for operational expenses. And since I have no control in them being spent as investments, if they are, I believe they should not be put towards risky investments - the government should be batting 1000 on those investments.


RE: Yeah about that...
By vol7ron on 10/30/2011 11:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
Sarcasm noted. But, it's funny that you list those things, verses art museums, tax-incentive programs, affirmative action, or welfare.

My point wasn't that I disagreed with what the government spends money, merely that if they take my money and spend it on something, I expect them to "bat 1000". If I wanted to put my money in something risky, I should be the one that determines the amount of risk and what that investment is - it is not the government's role to make investments.


RE: Yeah about that...
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2011 7:16:22 AM , Rating: 2
I don't mind the government partaking in research spending towards future investments. But that research should be for the everyone's benefit, not a single corporation.

But when they do make "investments" it also better be towards a level playing field. Not promoting one technology because another doesn't meet their approval. And it better damn well be a sure thing in every likely scenario.

Solyndra wasn't a sure thing even in the best scenario. Fisker And Tesla are also risky at best. $57,000 hybrids as mainstream vehicles(which is what is was originally billed as)? Yeah I'll pass.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki